The voice of the elderly in accepting alternative perspectives on oral health.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As we age, the dynamic balance between gains and losses has been acknowledged by current portrayals of health. Oral health research has yet to fully incorporate such dynamism in understanding the impact of oral disorders on the life of elders. OBJECTIVE: to explore the existence of alternative views on oral health through values, beliefs and behaviors of older adults. METHODS: Focus group discussions occurred among 42 men and women between the ages of 64 and 93 years old. Participants were from community and seniors centres and retirement homes. Each discussion lasted for about 90 minutes and was tape-recorded for verbatim transcription. Data were analyzed systematically and comparatively using a thematic approach to explore the depth of opinions and understandings of oral health and disability. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Participants shared the acceptance of some oral impairment and disability as an alternative view of a 'healthy' mouth as they balanced gains and losses, adjusted expectations, and sought social support. Participants discussed that an edentulous mouth might not always be disruptive to daily functioning for all. As a result, a full set of new dentures may not always be the ultimate goal.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".